(Group 1) of 30 people with cancer who smoked their whole life stand to your left
(Group 2) of 30 middle class people who never smoked and are healthy stand to your right.
Group 1 has no insurance. They never worked or quit work or wh**ever.
Group 2 has insurance they worked.
A group of 10 judges stand before you.
These judges are divided in half.
Half of the Judges will force group 2 to pay for group 1 insurance. (The judges of force)
The other half will not force group 2 to pay for group 1 insurance. (The judges of morality)
The judges inform you that forcing group 2 to pay for group 1 will raise the cost of group 2 insurance.
Which half of the judges will you allow to have power?

You see...The fundament concept of Christianity is making individual moral choices. You have free will.
By selecting the Judges of force you are in fact using an immoral means to achieve a perceived moral ends.
This concept is foreign to the modern left.
The lefts concept of morality is to obscure force by using a collective....aka congress.

There is not one individual that I know that would force a rich man to pay for a poor woman. when the individuals are not obscured by a collective.
Could you find someone on the street that is poor and force another person on the street that is rich to pay for them...and if they don't imprison them?
How can you v**e for a collective to do what you as an individual cannot do and call that morality?

I love the people who use the Royal "WE". Those people are the very people that depend on the "WE" which usually means someone else must pay for them.

Whenever a service in our society is funded by government, commercial institutions will always extract as much funding as they can get.
ACA did just that. Once the funding happened the regulator of cost was removed.
It is a simple fact that when a service is less affordable by some it drives down the cost and produces more options.
You inject funds and the cost will rise.
This is what happened with college education as well. You make student loans easy to get the universities suck that (Seemingly) free money out of the students.
The debt attributed to the "Right of an Education" works exactly as the ACA. Student get degrees in fields where the amount they have borrowed can never be paid back. Many students will be in servitude though debt to our government backed student loans for the rest of their life.(Or much of it.)
Bankruptcy cannot even remove student loan debt.

The next time you think that someone else ought to pay for someone else's health insurance. Go buy yourself a gun and go to your neighbors house that has money, Declare yourself Robin hood, and go steal the guys money and drop it off at the nearest cancer center. Let me know if you feel good about yourself after you do that.

I wish I had coverage as well as the VA offers. I personally know several people who are very pleased with their VA coverage and the minimal co-pays for medications and services. I pay more for my health insurance than that and I receive very little in return for prescriptions and doctor visits. I have heard the horror stories of the VA, but locally it is just not that way. It takes time to get what you need done, but if you are pro-active and in need, it will happen.
What I see as the biggest problem, is that insurance companies run the world. The money they charge, first goes into their pockets. Then they negotiate with doctors as to what the doctor can charge, and what services you will be covered for. I am sure that the doctor also pays them for the 'rights' to treat the folks holding their insurance plans. Add to that the high cost of malpractice insurance, insurance on the building and contents, car insurance, homeowners insurance, and the physicians personal health insurance......well, I don't know about anyone else, but I see a problem here.

As usual. you are off an a rant with partial facts, have t***hs and distortions--probably used on something you heard somewhere. Here is a link to a comprehensive study done by the NIH:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048809/

Because its long and complicated and you will probably not be able to get someone to read it to you, here is the conclusion:

"Conclusion

The medical liability system costs the nation more than $55 billion annually. This is less than some imaginative estimates put forward in the health reform debate, and it represents a small fraction of total health care spending. Yet in absolute dollars, the amount is not trivial.

Moreover, to the extent that some of these costs stem from meritless malpractice litigation, 21 they are particularly objectionable to health care providers. The psychological and political value of addressing this grievance could be considerable.

Reforms that offer the prospect of reducing these costs have modest potential to exert downward pressure on overall health spending. Reforms to the health care delivery system, such as alterations to the fee-for-service reimbursement system and the incentives it provides for overuse, probably provide greater opportunities for savings.

Some aspects of federal health reform may reduce medical liability costs. Extending health insurance coverage to the uninsured may reduce their need to file malpractice claims to rec**p medical expenses occasioned by injuries caused by malpractice.

Additionally, in states that have adopted “collateral-source offsets”—meaning that costs covered by health insurance cannot be recovered by malpractice plaintiffs—greater prevalence of health insurance will mean more frequent offsets, lower total indemnity payments, and less “double payment” of medical expenses. A farther-reaching reform that merits discussion would be to impose a federal collateral-source offset in connection with the move to universal coverage. In these respects, health reform and liability reform may have unexpected synergies in bending our cost curve down."

Like most lefties, you are at the very least being deceptive or lying by omission. You conveniently leave out the FACT that one of the most significant contributors to our high health care cost is the LACK of tort reform. Why do you leave that out? People can come to their on conclusions but I am sure it has something to do with YOUR deceptive agenda. You seem to say that making our system more like the VA healthcare system would solve many problems. That is rich. The VA system is awful. If you like the VA system we have then you will love a single payer government sponsored health care system. I think most would not choose that if given the choice. You imply that the reason we do not have a national health care system for all is because we spend so much on our military and defense. That is rubbish and at the end yet another lie pushed by the left.

You say most countries have healthcare for all their citizens. That for the most part is true. But again, what you conspicuously and probably purposely leave out is that not one of those countries has the gauntlet of lawyers standing just outside the door of the doctor's office waiting for their cut. Not one. You also seem to imply that because another country has national health care that is superior care to ours. Not so, and I know that first hand. If you want to take a quick, albeit unscientific measure of the quality AND availability of other nation's healthcare just go to M.D. Anderson, Sloan Kettering, Emory or the Mayo Clinic and take a poll of the throngs of foreigners that are coming here to get their health care needs. It is stunning. If you are going to push one of your agenda filled, deceptive and biased opinions at least try and be a little bit intellectually honest. For a change.

All the nonsense about whether - and how - to repeal the ACA ("Obamacare") and yet there seems little discussion about the very important basics:
1) SHOULD our society guarantee healthcare to all of our citizens? Almost all nations do. It would be the Christian thing to do. BUT - most nations do not have the military spending that we do. Over half of our discretionary spending goes to past, present, or future wars (this includes VA costs, nuclear weapons costs, etc. that are not in the official military budget). Even if it is a moral imperative, can we afford to do this? Can we afford NOT to do this? Some studies show that providing basic care costs less - making sure that diabetics can get care, etc., saves a lot of money in the long run. Protagonists argue that even when people get Medicaid they still use the ER - but that is because almost no physicians accept Medicaid. A "Medicare-for-All" program would be widely accepted (for physicians who want to be paid...).

2) There is a lot of talk about premiums but no talk about costs. American health care costs about $9,000 per year per person. NO ONE will ever be able to get cheap health insurance again. People who say they used too get insurance for $200 are confused - their employer was paying much of their premium. Costs for premiums have risen over the years as states have required coverage for things such as mammograms. The ACA required much more coverage - that is one reason the premiums have become so expensive. I was paying $25,000 per year for a family of three. When I had a colonoscopy I paid zero for that service, which otherwise would have cost about $5,000.

Allowing the sale of insurance across state lines would allow people to find cheap insurance that doesn't cover a lot of things. Would I like to buy insurance that doesn't cover cigarette smokers? Sure - I would save a bundle! But states do regulate insurance. If you live in Florida and have insurance from Delaware and have a problem, who is going to care? No one!

Medicare for all would reduce costs. Insurance company overhead adds as much as 25% to our health care costs. Medicare has an overhead of less than 8%. Having a tight prescription formulary, like the VA, would also help cut costs.

Things to consider...